Forums >General Running>AHR / Speed as fitness indicator
Evolving body parts
I'm not sure this has been discussed before, I am sorry if so. Anyway, here's the thing:
Disclaimer: I am not an athlete and have no degree in sports / fitness etc. So please be gentle. Just an engineer who likes numbers and is looking for a progress indicator.
I've been kind of tracking the ratio of average heart rate and speed values of individual runs to see what my fitness level is on that particular day. I created a formula that somewhat compensates for distance (the longer you run the higher your AHR will be as you get dehidrated and exhausted).
E.g., for 10k runs the numbers would give 160 bpm / 9.5 km/h = 16.8. Then a couple of months later I'd do 155 bpm / 10.4 km/h = 14.9. For me, I am happy with anything below 15. After not running for several weeks (injury, etc.), it jumps up as high as 20. It does correlate with my perceived fitness level and I really can use it to see if I'm progressing. I even use it to set goals, like reach 14 or something.
Okay, I know it only works for comparison only if all these (and probably more) conditions are the same:
* distance
* elevation profile (or even route)
* temperature
* mood, level of stress, etc.
* time of day
What I'm wondering is:
* Is any of you using a similar thing?
* Is there an official / correct / better way of using these data as fitness level indicators?
* Am I reinventing the wheel?
Sorry for the long post
It's an interesting metric - I assume you're using it to compare runs of same percieved effort? All easy runs, all tempo runs, races of a certain distance, things like that?
If I get a chance I'll apply it to my log
I think it's a cool idea. I'm also an engineer.
Obviously the y intercept for the relationship of bpm to speed is your resting heart rate, so maybe you want the slope instead of the ratio. The ratio would be highly nonlinear as your speed approaches zero. But maybe once you're running the ratio is linear enough to be a useful measure.
You might try measuring your heart rate at different speeds starting at rest, going to walking speeds, and finally running (with enough time and replicates at each rate to get a stead-state heart rate). It'd be interesting to see if bpm vs speed linear throughout the range or if there are jumps up or down at about the rate where you start running.
Seems like something lots of folks would have tried, so maybe there are lots of similar studies out there, but I think it's a cool idea.
Of course, if you run inline, heel-strike, and don't swing your arms, i.e., mimic a tyrannosaurus rex, ostrich, cat, or load-carrying Kenyan woman, your heart-rate will instantly drop by 20%*
*Sport Jester reference for those who didn't get it
Of course, if you run inline, heel-strike, and don't swing your arms, i.e., mimic a tyrannosaurus rex, ostrich, cat, or load-carrying Kenyan woman, your heart-rate will instantly drop by 20%* *Sport Jester reference for those who didn't get it
In b4 a wild SJ appears
Know thyself.
Thanks, GC. Yes, you may be right. Especially if you consider that resting HR also drops measurably as you get fitter. Mine, for example has dropped almost 20 in a matter of 4 months. (Perhaps the secret to stellar progress numbers is to skip training for a long time )
Of course I forgot to mention that HR also drops with age, so you either compensate for that or this is for short to mid term indication only. It's only for fun anyways for us unprofessionals.
Do I see a dead horse beaten here?
Oh yeah. But I forgot the faster-than-Usain-Bolt, inline, heel-striking Australian aborigines.
I messed with it for a while when I started LHR training last summer.
I started in the spring and as it warmed up I started running slower at the same HR even though I felt like I was getting fitter. There is a big difference running at 92 degrees instead of 53 degrees though.
I came up with a calculation that factored in my pace, avg HR, and an "effective dew point" that I came up with that gave me an overall efficiency indicator.
On my "effective dew point", I limited the benefit of the dew point over or under the actual temperature to a maximum of 25 degrees difference. i.e. on a day when it was 84 degrees and 18% humidity the actual dew point was 36. Instead of using that for my calculator I used my arbitrary adjustment of a maximum of 25 degrees and so for that run I used an effective dew point of 59. The only times that really came into play was on hot dry days. I also didn't have any real cold weather in there so you would probably have to come up with some kind of similar adjustment for that.
Surprisingly, the calculation seemed to work for all types of runs, not just easy runs, but even for races. I even kept a moving average of the last 7 days to make sure that it was on the right track even though occasionally I had a bad run or something.
My calculation was taking the avg pace of the run divided by my HR X the effective DP X 1,000 to make it a bigger number. As long as the number kept going up I was happy.
Pace / (HR X EDP) * 1000.
I haven't updated it in over a year though.
Age: 50 Weight: 224 Height: 6'3" (Goal weight 195)
Current PR's: Mara 3:14:36* (2017); HM 1:36:13 (2017); 10K 43:59 (2014); 5K 21:12 (2016)
I find race times to be a pretty good fitness indicator.
Runners run
I had this typed up before wanting to see if Mikey chimed in with his fitness indicator
"I think it would be better if either the speed or HR is a constant and compare the ratios as a fitness indicator (best fitness indicator - running a race).
Varying both could be interesting in terms of coming up with the most efficient speed per heart beat or some other TPS report."
Yes, agreed, but:
Races are perfect for feedback though.
I had this typed up before wanting to see if Mikey chimed in with his fitness indicator "I think it would be better if either the speed or HR is a constant and compare the ratios as a fitness indicator (best fitness indicator - running a race). Varying both could be interesting in terms of coming up with the most efficient speed per heart beat or some other TPS report."
Thanks, Happyfeet. Of course, faster runs (everything else being the same) gives better ratio, because the HR/speed relatioship is non-linear. It flattens as you get closer to the max HR.
But as npaden said, it sort of works if you know what you're looking at. Running as few races as I do, I can't really think of an easier source of feedback.
Yeah I hear you that you can't race as often as you want feedback and so you want some other indicators. To me the next best indicators are just workouts. If you do the same workout at the same effort every week or two, month after month it becomes really easy to estimate your race fitness.
I've never used a HRM but it seems there are just as many variables that can affect heart rate as anything else. I get that it's a data point that you can objectively measure but that doesn't mean its any better at helping you estimate fitness than, say, rate of perceived effort at a given pace.
I'd even suggest that focusing too much on outside numbers can prolong the perceived effort learning curve.
Of course, faster runs (everything else being the same) gives better ratio, because the HR/speed relationship is non-linear. It flattens as you get closer to the max HR.
Not nearly as much as you would think. For me anyway.
Looking at my spreadsheet from June of 2012 I ran a 10K race in 54:14 for an average pace of 8:37 per mile. My avg HR for the race was 173. It was 65 degrees, 90% humidity and a DP of 63. My efficiency indicator was 42.26. A week later I ran an easy 6 mile run at a pace of 10:54 per mile and an avg HR of 137. Temp was 70 degrees, 75% humidity and DP was 63. My efficiency indicator for that run was 42.19.
Actually since the DP ended up the same for both runs you wouldn't even need to factor that in.
There are a lot of other variables that you can't even begin to factor in though. On high humidity days, a light breeze can help a TON on comfort and result in a lower HR with all other things being equal. On warmer days having an overcast sky can make a huge difference vs. being out there in the blazing sun with no shade. I wasn't ever able to come up with a calculation that could take things like that into account. That's even true for races. All things being equal, even running the identical course, the weather can make a big difference in your time.
Yes, of course. From what you're saying, I guess it's not a complete dead-end. This info is there for free if you're running with a HR monitor. Right now I can't think of a simpler fitness gauge.
And I can't help it, but numbers are a motivator for me.